Exhibitor Loyalty Through Trust,Participation and Citizenship Behaviors – Moderating Effect of First-Time and Repeat Exhibitors

Abstract

This study examines the relationships between the variables “trust,” “participation,” “citizenship behaviors,” and “loyalty.” It also identifies the moderating effect of “exhibitor frequency at exhibitions.” Analyzing data from 240 exhibitors at major business-to-business (B2B) exhibitions in Seoul, Korea, the study found that “trust” positively influenced “participation,” “citizenship behaviors,” and “loyalty,” with “citizenship behavior” being the only significant predictor of “loyalty,” supporting four of six proposed hypotheses derived from social exchange theory. Additionally, exhibitors who attended more than twice demonstrated more proactive behavior and greater loyalty based on trust, thereby reinforcing exhibitor frequency as a moderating variable. These findings provide a theoretical basis and practical recommendations for exhibition promotion in the MICE (Meeting, Incentives, Conferences, Exhibitions) context.

Keywords

trust participation behavior citizenship behavior loyalty exhibition industry business-to-business

Highlights

The study found that trust and citizenship behaviors collectively partly determine exhibitor loyalty in business-to-business (B2B) exhibitions.

Favorable interactions and responsive exhibitors’ positive behaviors may not necessarily result in loyalty for the exhibition.

Repeat exhibitors, if they already have trust, are more engaged and responsible, leading to more successful exhibitions.

Introduction

The MICE industry is recognized as one of the fastest-growing segments within the tourism sector, generating millions in revenue for countries and cities worldwide, with both direct and indirect multiplier effects (An et al., 2021). According to recent statistics, the global business-to-business (B2B) trade show market was valued at US$64.5 billion in 2021 and is expected to grow to US$50.6 billion by the end of 2022 (Julia, 2024). Additionally, the Global Barometer, published by the UFI (2024, Global Association of the Exhibition Industry), indicated that exhibition revenues increased by an average of 20% in 2023, and, with this trend expected to continue, revenues are projected to grow by an average of 17% year-over-year in 2024. Furthermore, exhibition facilities add value for residents, enhance the attractiveness of destinations (He et al., 2019), and provide exhibitors with opportunities to meet professional buyers with high purchasing power benefiting business both locally and beyond (Lin, 2016). These critical advantages have intensified competition among national and local administration seeking to attract MICE events (Y. Wang et al., 2014). Thus it is essential to invest significant resources in building large-scale exhibition centers and hosting exhibitions to gain both economic and non-economic benefits (e.g., Deery & Jago, 2010).

Achieving a competitive advantage in business relationships often hinges on customer-centric relationship management that fosters enduring and sustainable relationships with diverse customers (Y. Wang et al., 2014). Building relationships is particularly effective in the exhibition sector because of its characteristics of service-based exchange (i.e., the exhibition product is based on experience and information exchange), a business market (i.e., exhibitors are business entities), and transactions being conducted via multiple channels (i.e., agents, chambers of commerce, trade associations; Palmatier et al., 2006). Furthermore, the key to an exhibition’s success depends on the close coordination of organizers and exhibitors, as the roles of organizers have evolved to include a communication function, working all-year-round as hubs, becoming information brokers, or acting as mouthpieces for their market (Jin et al., 2012). Organizers now need to identify industry trends, develop innovative exhibition concepts aligned with market demand, and help exhibitors to establish lasting communication with their customers, impacting exhibition operation, exhibitor behavior, and the relationship between them (Jin et al., 2012). Thus, it is critical for exhibitors and organizers to build a strong relationship to sustain subsequent exhibitions, and trust is one of the key dimensions that exhibitors consider critical in assessing relationship quality with organizers.

Trust is thought to be key to forming relationships between buyers and sellers, and is evidenced when customers develop a tacit understanding with sellers where it is thought that sellers are reliable and are acting in the interests of customers, therefore reducing perceived risk by a measure of reliability and honesty (Franklin & Marshall, 2019). Also, trust as one’s confidence in another’s goodwill in a social exchange is often regarded as a means of organizational control of risks, because such confidence encourages cooperation, enhances commitment, and avoids fear and resistance in social exchange perspectives (He et al., 2019).

In establishing the trust between buyer and seller, B2B (business-to-business) exhibitions have become an important means of encouraging collaboration that shares a common vision to improve the quality of exhibition services for visitors (Jia & Wan, 2022). Such exhibitions are often regarded as relationship marketing tools for exhibitors, for they provide a higher level of customer commitment and enterprise performance compared to transactional marketing (Oromendía et al., 2015). This supports the notion that the main activities at B2B exhibitions are not just traditional sales and procurement but also information exchange and networking, which are key elements in developing B2B marketing theory (Mora Cortez & Johnston, 2017). Therefore, the success of exhibitions depends on the extent to which exhibitors engage in intensive interactions, cooperation, and the exchange of ideas and resources such as information, knowledge, and experiences (Zhang et al., 2023). Ultimately, these activities form the foundation of value co-creation, leading to sustained successful exhibitions through close communication and cooperation between exhibitors and organizers (Wong & Lai, 2019). Therefore, it is imperative for organizers to implement various strategies to ensure that exhibitors remain engaged in their exhibitions and involve supportive and helping behaviors to create sustainable relationships.

Reflecting the essential role of trust and consistent engagement—including participation and citizenship behavior at exhibitions—previous literature has estimated the effects of trust on customer engagement (Pappas, 2016; Shen et al., 2020), participation (Dabholkar & Sheng, 2012), and citizenship as a form of value co-creation behavior (Roy et al., 2020; Waseem et al., 2021). However, these studies often do not specifically address the B2B context and so fail to capture how trust in organizers., and their active support, may enhance exhibitors’ enjoyment of such interactions. Such an emotive reaction encourages more responsive behaviors, leading to a form of co-organization of the event (Sridhar et al., 2015). Accordingly, this study aims to highlight the effect of trust on exhibitors’ participation and citizenship behavior at B2B exhibitions to address the failure to examine the dynamics of trust-commitment and behavioral relationships within the exhibitor–organizer relationship in MICE research.

In the highly competitive exhibition industry, attracting new customers and encouraging repeat visits are crucial. Initially, exhibition choice is influenced by attributes such as reputation, information access, and networking opportunities, while repeated visitation is driven by trust and commitment formulated by past attendance generating organizational gains (Whitfield & Webber, 2011). Much tourism research has confirmed that repeat visitation often leads to a sense of place attachment, and a parallel concept is applicable to the exhibition industry. “Exhibition attachment” is formed through on-site involvement and interactions (Fu et al., 2019). Past positive experiences can increase exhibitors’ willingness to engage more frequently and potentially deeply with any given exhibition (Huang, 2016). Therefore, repeat attendees who have established attachment and trust are more likely to participate proactively and engage in citizenship behaviors—such as sponsorship—thus contributing to the co-creation of exhibition value more than new exhibitors might. Despite these facts, there remains little consideration concerning the effect of trust on exhibitors’ participation and citizenship behavior. Indeed few studies have examined differences between first-time and other exhibitors in the exhibition industry, although several studies have examined group differences in the general tourism and hospitality sectors (Chang et al., 2013; Fuchs & Reichel, 2011; Hsu et al., 2014). The authors expect different behavioral dynamics in the exhibition industry between less and more frequent exhibitors regarding exhibition organizer support behaviors (Matzler et al., 2019).

Given this, the concept of social exchange is a useful framework to assess the evolving role of exhibitors as value creators in the MICE context. Exhibitors have complex roles, as they are both served by organizers and provide services to visitors, which strengthens their incentive to work closely with the organizer (Wong & Lai, 2018). Following this approach, the relationship between exhibitors and organizers evolves from passively receiving marketing information to actively engaging with exhibition creators to enhance the success of the exhibition (Yi & Gong, 2013). Social exchange theory, which denotes voluntary transactions between two or more parties for mutual benefit, supports these notions (Tafesse & Skallerud, 2015). Consequently, this study aims to investigate: (1) the effect of exhibitors’ trust on participation and citizenship behaviors that encourage exhibitors as value creators to establish long-term relationships with other stakeholders; (2) exhibitor loyalty to the exhibition arising from both participative and citizenship behaviors; and 3) the moderating effect of exhibiting frequency between trust, participation, citizenship behaviors, and loyalty.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Social Exchange Theory in the B2B Context

Strategizing a business relationship involves not only the economic exchange of favorable products or services, but also the social and hedonic sharing of psychological rewards (Jeong & Oh, 2017). However, the limited explanations provided by transaction cost analysis in many relationship-based exchanges have prompted the adoption of social and psychological perspectives to better explain various B2B relationships, and to focus more on longer-term implications. Social Exchange Theory (SET) is one such approach that has gained widespread application in contemporary management research (Cropanzano et al., 2017).

Originally, SET viewed social relationships as a series of repeated exchanges where behavior was defined rationally by the difference between rewards and costs. Each party seeks to maximize their own benefits, which influences whether the relationship continues, engages, or terminates (Jeong & Oh, 2017). As the relationship develops and evolves through continuous evaluation of reciprocal outcomes, successful relationships are built on mutual dependence and trust (Nevin, 1995). Positive or negative exchange outcomes can differentially impact mutual dependence and trust, which, in turn, influence cooperation, commitment, and reputation (Hessling et al., 2018).

This study examines the journey from trust to commitment between exhibitors and organizers using the SET framework. Exhibitors benefit from the organizer’s platform, which facilitates sales leads and relational marketing with buyers. Conversely, organizers benefit from the business reach of exhibitors, which attracts buyers interested in specific products or services, while ensuring the exhibition’s survival and viability through consistent customer participation and stakeholder satisfaction. These exchange relationships create opportunities to build mutual dependence and trust, which are crucial for long-term business success. Although SET has been applied to some MICE research contexts, including events and festivals (Adongo et al., 2019; Alonso & Bressan, 2013; Taek Lim & Sil Lee, 2006), it has rarely been applied to the business exhibition context.

Participation and Citizenship Behaviors as Value Co-Creation Processes

Customer participation behavior encompasses all forms of customer involvement and engagement in the value-creation process. One key dimension is responsible behavior, where customers fulfill their duties and responsibilities for successful service delivery (Yi et al., 2011). In the exhibition industry, this includes following instructions, adhering to rules, and actively participating in co-programs (Dong et al., 2008). Participation behaviors encompass information seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction (Revilla-Camacho et al., 2015). Exhibitors seek information from stakeholders to better understand their customers and market trends (Gummerus et al., 2012). This involvement in the value co-creation process enhances perceived performance (Saarijärvi et al., 2013). Sharing resources and information between exhibitors and organizers improves dialogue and outcomes for all parties (Hatch & Schultz, 2010). Additionally, positive personal interactions—such as being friendly, kind, and respectful—are essential for fostering strong mutual relationships (Kim et al., 2019).

Co-creative participative behavior involves required, role-specific actions, but participative citizenship behavior includes voluntary, “above and beyond expectations” actions, which provide exceptional value to the organization (Groth, 2005). While not essential for core service delivery, citizenship behavior significantly contributes to a firm’s effective functioning (Mitrega et al., 2022). This behavior encompasses feedback, advocacy, aid, and tolerance (Yi & Gong, 2013). For example, an exhibitor might enhance exhibition service delivery by suggesting improvements for associated social programs, advocating for purchase decisions, or promoting the organization through positive word-of-mouth among industry peers, thereby demonstrating loyalty (Bettencourt, 1997). Additionally, in the MICE context, exhibitors who are affectively committed and trust the organization are more likely to overlook service failures and remain tolerant despite inadequate service delivery (van Tonder et al., 2018). Ultimately these participation and citizenship behaviors drive collaborative relationships which denote partnership behavior characterized by attributes such as engagement, commitment, knowledge sharing, and/or resolving conflict (Weidenfeld et al., 2016; J. Yang et al., 2013), resulting in increased revisit intention or positive word-of-mouth (M. J. Lee et al., 2015).

According to Yi and Gong (2013), these forms of behaviors are considered value co-creation activities permitting the achievement of specific goals (France et al., 2015). The concept of value proposition is significant in the exhibition industry because an organizer provides a platform (the exhibition) for both exhibitors and visitors to achieve their business objectives. Value is co-created when exhibitors and buyers work with the organizer, who offers propositions to assist in reaching these objectives (Wong & Lai, 2019). This value creation is not due to a single factor, but results from the entire process occurring during the relationship (Hessling et al., 2018). Therefore, this study aims to explore the antecedents and consequences of both participation and citizenship behaviors as part of the joint value creation process, rather than merely focusing on the end value outcomes. These co-creation behaviors are expected to contribute to long-term and sustainable relationships supporting the growth of exhibitions.

Trust, Participation, and Citizenship Behaviors

Trust is a multidimensional concept comprising competence, dependability, and integrity (Hon & Grunig, 1999). It has been defined as a psychological contract, or a definitive faith established by the customer that facilitates social cooperation with the firm (K.-H. Lee & Hyun, 2016). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) suggest that the trust benefit is all the more valuable as it reduces failure costs and the level of perceived risk in business-to-business transactions. By reducing the risk in resource exchange, trust contributes to providing long-term relationships and loyalty, including a form of advocacy behavior. Recognizing that companies face competitive environments with perceived risk and uncertainty for customers, marketing researchers have studied trust and its consequences (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002).

In business relationships, trust is regarded as “perhaps the single most powerful relationship marketing tool for a company” (Berry, 1995, p. 242), influencing intergroup behavior, such as a higher degree of cooperation, and intention to stay in the relationship (Bennett & Robson, 2004). Also, trust can be conceptualized as confidence in a partner’s responsible and benevolent behavior, which enhances willingness to rely on that partner (Füller & Bilgram, 2017), thereby shaping customers’ attitudes and behavior (Izogo et al., 2020).

Existing literature highlights that trust manifests as a customer’s confidence in the quality of information disseminated by an organization, and their willingness to accept that information (Toufaily et al., 2013). As trust strengthens, customers are more inclined to contribute to the organization by sharing information and fostering social relationships with other customers (Dabholkar & Sheng, 2012; Pappas, 2016). Furthermore, customers who trust an organization are more likely to provide valuable feedback aimed at enhancing the provider’s service quality, leading to improved long-term outcomes (Chen et al., 2020). Additionally, existing research indicates that trust in entrepreneurial activities boosts willingness to share information, advocate for buyers, and help in B2B contexts (Walz & Celuch, 2010).

In the context of information and social exchange, exhibitions serve as powerful marketing events that enhance social bonds between key actors (Rinallo et al., 2010). They facilitate strategic networking, increase sales opportunities, and foster learning activities as relationship outcomes (L.-Y. Li, 2006). As exhibitors often assess the trustworthiness of organizers regarding their ability to attract quality visitors (Smith et al., 1999), trust is widely accepted as a foundational element for strategic relationship development and long-term business relationships, including within the exhibition industry. However, existing literature tends to focus on customer commitment, engagement, and loyalty, as outcomes of trust, often overlooking the significance of proactive participation and citizenship behaviors in fostering sustainable business relationships (Lai, 2015).

While existing research supports that trust facilitates participation and citizenship behaviors, with a proven direct impact in other contexts (Alves & Wagner Mainardes, 2017; Casper Ferm & Thaichon, 2021; Dabholkar & Sheng, 2012; Roy et al., 2020; Shen et al., 2020; Song et al., 2019), there has been limited investigation of these dynamics, especially within the exhibition industry. Hence, we proposed that:

Hypothesis 1: Trust in an organizer has a positive impact on an exhibitor’s citizenship behavior

Hypothesis 2: Trust in an organizer has a positive impact on an exhibitor’s participation behavior.

Participation, Citizenship Behaviors, and Loyalty

Loyalty in exhibitions is defined as repeated participation in the same exhibition, and is often linked to positive word-of-mouth recommendations (Tanford & Jung, 2017). Cossío-Silva et al. (2016) indicated that participation behavior and citizenship behavior as value co-creation have a direct impact on loyalty by inhibiting switching behavior. Similar findings are reported by Celsi and Olson (1988) in the entertainment industry, and by Baker et al. (2009) regarding increased customer participation in the service industry. Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012) found that “when tourists have the opportunity to co-create a travel package, they are more likely to re-purchase from the same company and recommend the company to others” (p. 1485). It has been suggested that exhibition organizers are also able to develop loyal customers if they permit exhibitors to participate and become involved in the creation process. C.-C. Yang et al. (2014) and Y.-L. Lee et al. (2019) found examples of participation and citizenship behaviors as the process of value co-creation and loyalty creation in the hospitality and service industry. Consequently, we proposed that:

Hypothesis 3: Exhibitors’ citizenship behavior has a positive impact on exhibition loyalty

Hypothesis 4: Exhibitors’ participation behavior has a positive impact on exhibition loyalty.

Trust and Loyalty

Customer loyalty and trust has long been critical for helping the tourism and business event sectors to succeed (Akhtar et al., 2019; J. Liu et al., 2019). As previously noted, social exchange theory states that customers are likely to interact with service producers they trust (Cheng et al., 2017). Han and Hyun (2013) conceptualized trust as a type of bond that sustains a state where the supplier is reliable and meets customers’ expectations. For their part, Agustin and Singh (2005) stated that trust may lead to loyalty because trust can even arise from customers’ satisfaction with the way employees and companies handle complaints. In this sense, trust is the core component to maintaining long and stable relationships with customers, and it is an important factor in promoting long-term loyalty in the customer–provider context. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Exhibitor’s trust has a positive impact on exhibition loyalty.

The Moderating Effect of Frequency of Visitation

Numerous studies of tourism and hospitality have compared first-time and repeated customers and shown inter-group differences in motivation (Hsu et al., 2014), preferences (Chang et al., 2013), and loyalty (Su & Swanson, 2017). It has been argued that people with differing degrees of familiarity with a product or service take part in varying participation activities (e.g., Fuchs & Reichel, 2011). Moreover, even though revisit exhibitors are thought to be more likely to show favorable attitudes toward organizers—and so demonstrate different expenditure patterns—such behavior has not been fully discussed. However, Rather et al. (2022) revealed in their research on tourism destination choices that repeat customers tended to co-create higher destination related value—that is, there was greater value in use and co-production opportunities.

In this study, exhibition visitation frequency was measured as either “first-time” or “repeat” for those who exhibited more than twice. X. Li et al. (2008) contended that first-time visitors are driven more by novelty, whereas repeat exhibitors enjoy familiarity with specific objects and are seen to be more antagonistic when faced with unsatisfactory service, being more likely to complain (Namkung & Jang, 2009). However, repeat exhibitors with higher trust levels tend to give more positive evaluations of an exhibition, and trust serves to offset antagonism, uncertainty, or unsatisfactory decisions (Fuchs & Reichel, 2011). That is, organizers may be given the benefit of the doubt. This is supported by Garbarino and Johnson (1999), who argued that trust and commitment are greater determinants of revisit intention in “high-visit groups.” Here, we are presuming that visiting frequency (first vs. repeat) will moderate the relationship between trust, customer participation, citizenship behaviors, and loyalty; that is, revisit exhibitors with higher trust levels demonstrate greater loyalty and engagement in creating joint value.

Hypothesis 6: Visiting frequency significantly moderate the relationship between trust and participation, citizenship behaviors and loyalty

Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

A survey was established using a questionnaire that measured trust, participation, citizenship behaviors, loyalty, and demographic information in the exhibition industry. The survey targeted exhibitors who had participated in four representative B2B exhibitions, such as Korea Pharm & Bio, CPHEX, Korea Mat, and Korea Lab in Seoul, Korea. Seoul’s eighth consecutive recognition in 2019 as the world’s best city for MICE makes it a particularly compelling subject for research, especially given its status as the largest city in South Korea for attracting global exhibitions. We obtained exhibitors’ contact information from exhibition hosts and used a simple random sampling method to send out 1,050 surveys via Google Forms from December 1 to 14, 2019. We received 240 usable responses, resulting in a 24% response rate, which is thought to be acceptable when considering firm-level data collection and no incentives (Holtom et al., 2022). In addition, there was some uniformity among respondents exhibiting at complementary exhibitions regarding B2B operations with relatively low final consumer sales. Data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the causal relationships between exhibitor trust, participation behaviors, citizenship behavior, and loyalty. We also explored the moderating effect of first-time versus repeated visitation, using the PROCESS Macro Model 1. The Macro is designed largely to replicate findings derived from the use of various forms of confirmatory factor analysis, but differs by applying a standardized model based on the hypothesized relationships between direct and indirect relationships, including moderated mediation variables (Hayes, 2022). In doing so, it applies linear regression analysis to each equation and inherently compiles the tests required by CFA. It can also be used with bootstrapping to overcome problems of irregularity in sampling (Hayes et al., 2017).

Measurement Items

Items for the appropriate scales for the constructs were drawn from the above literature review. Trust was measured using four items developed by Xie et al. (2014) and Franklin and Marshall (2019). The participation behavior (15 items) and citizenship behavior (13 items) were measured using scales modified from those developed by Yi and Gong (2013). Loyalty was measured with three items derived from S. K. Lee et al. (2015). All research variables were rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with minor contextual adjustments made to the wording where necessary. Demographic variables, including sex, age, education, employment period, and position, were also collected.

Result and Findings

Sample Profile

Most of the exhibitors in the sample were male (65.4%), primarily in their 30s (47.5%), followed by those in their 40s (26.7%), and 20s (16.3%). Of the sample, 64.6% were university graduates, and an additional 15.8% had a master’s degree or above. About half of the respondents (50.8%) had worked more than 5 years. A quarter (25.4%) had 10 years of working experience (25.4%) followed by 1 to 2 years (13.3%), and 4 to 5 years (11.3%). Almost all exhibitors (87.4%) had exhibitor responsibilities at an exhibition or trade fair at the time of the research, and more than half (50.4%) were repeat exhibitors who had participated twice or more at specific exhibitions (see the Appendix in the online supplemental material).

Measurement Model

Initially, two items from customer participation behaviors were deleted through exploratory factor analysis because the outer loading values were not above 0.4. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity had values of 0.7 to 0.9 for each of the individual scales, Bartlett’s test of sphericity for the above constructs was significant (p < .001), verifying the adequacy of EFA use (George & Mallery, 2001). To test the internal consistency of items, assessment using Cronbach’s alpha indicated an acceptable level of reliability (α > 0.7) for experimental data (Nunnally, 1978). The constructs had good internal consistency (Table 1).

Table 1.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA).

Construct	Factors	Measures	Factor Loading	Variance (%)(Cronbach’s α)
Trust		We think the exhibition is trustworthy.	0.871	74.094 (0.874)
		We think the exhibition takes responsibility for its actions.	0.766
		We feel sincerely trust its promise.	0.903
		We feel secure about the exhibition.	0.896
KMO = 0.787 Bartlett’s test = 878.622 (p < 0.001), Total variance 74.094%
Customer Participation Behavior	Interaction	We’re polite to the host.	0.898	45.049 (0.922)
		We’re kind to the host.	0.878
		We don’t act rudely to the host.	0.848
		We’re friendly to the host.	0.803
	Responsive Behavior	We adequately completed all the expected behaviors.	0.746	11.147 (0.900)
		We fulfilled responsibilities to the business.	0.720
		We performed all tasks required.	0.683
	Information sharing	We gave the host proper information.	0.868	15.318 (0.857)
		We provided necessary information so that the host could perform their duties.	0.852
		We clearly explained what we wanted the host to do.	0.789
	Information seeking	We searched for information on where this service is.	0.855	5.953 (0.764)
		We’re interested in how others behave when using this service.	0.731
		We asked others for information on what this service offers.	0.616
KMO = 0.864, Bartlett’s test = 1988.217, (p < .001), total variance, 77.467%
Customer Citizenship Behavior	Tolerance	We’re willing to be patient about any mistakes made by the host.	0.869	8.383 (0.851)
		We’re willing to put up with it, even if the service is not delivered as expected.	0.844
		We’re willing to adapt to waiting longer than expected on service delivery.	0.804
	Helping	We taught other exhibitor to use the service correctly.	0.841	48.100 (0.882)
		We helped others if they had problems.	0.836
		We assisted other customers if the host needed our help.	0.717
		We gave advice to other exhibitors.	0.653
	Advocacy	We recommended the exhibition and the host to others.	0.836	6.492 (0.806)
		We encouraged well-known exhibitors to use exhibition.	0.752
		We recommended exhibition and the hosts positively to others.	0.610
	Feedback	If there was a problem, we let the host know about it.	0.823	12.842 (0.829)
		When we received good service, we commented on it.	0.776
		If we had ideas on how to improve the service, we let the host know.	0.742
KMO = 0.895 Bartlett’s test = 1714.467, (p < .001), total variance 75.817%
Satisfaction		We’re satisfied with attending this exhibition.	0.843	76.605 (0.922)
		Overall, we feel good about this exhibition.	0.834
		We feel assured that we did well to attend this exhibition.	0.816
Loyalty		We will recommend this exhibition to neighbors.	0.824	8.059 (0.892)
		We will continue to attend this exhibition.	0.824
		We will give positive WOM.	0.762
KMO = 0.739 Bartlett’s test = 610.563, (p < .001), total variance 84.664%

Note. KMO = the Kaiser−Meyer−Olkin test; WOM = word of mouth.

Following Soper (2020), and assuming an anticipated effect size = 0.25 and a desired power size of 0.8, the 15 items and five latent factors require a sample size of 209 to permit confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Hence, according to Jackson (2003) and the use of the PASS software package, the current sample size permitted the use of CFA. Assessment of a variety of goodness-of-fit measures to evaluate the overall model fit showed the following results: χ2 (80) = 171.153, p < .000, df = 80, GFI = 0.909, NFI = 0.921, CFI = 0.956, RMR = 0.043, RMSEA = 0.069. All goodness-of-fit indices were within the acceptable limits (Hair et al., 2014). The composite reliability (CR) values were greater than the threshold of 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Convergent validity (CV) was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs in the measurement model and CV > 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Moreover, the AVE for each construct was greater than the squared correlation coefficients for the corresponding inter-constructs and, thus, the measurement model was deemed acceptable regarding construct reliability and discriminant validity (see Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Constructs	Measures	Std. β	C.R	AVE
Trust	T1. We think the exhibition is trustworthy	0.937	0.90	0.70
	T2. We think the exhibition takes responsibility for its actions	0.697
	T3. We trust in the promises made by conference stakeholders	0.807
	T4. We have surety about the exhibition’s purpose	0.798
Customer Participation Behavior	P1. Personal interaction	0.841	0.87	0.63
	P2. Responsive behavior	0.790
	P3. Information sharing	0.669
	P4. Information seeking	0.422
Customer Citizenship Behavior	C1. Tolerance	0.504	0.87	0.64
	C2. Helping	0.785
	C3. Advocacy	0.785
	C4. Feedback	0.759
Loyalty	L1. We will have positive WOM	0.887	0.92	0.80
	L2. We will continue to attend this exhibition	0.851
	L3. We will recommend this exhibition to neighbors	0.838

Note.Model fit: χ2 (80) = 171.153, p < .000, df = 80, GFI = 0.909, NFI = 0.921, CFI = 0.956, RMR = 0.043, RMSEA = 0.069.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity.

Constructs	Citizenship	Participation	Loyalty	Trust
Citizenship	0.64
Participation	0.49	0.63
Loyalty	0.30	0.11	0.80
Trust	0.28	0.14	0.68	0.70

Note.The diagonal value is average variance extracted (AVE).

Structural Model

The findings from the structural equation model are shown in Figure 1 and Table 4. They indicate an adequate fit for the data: χ2 (81) = 210.129, p < .000, df = 81, GFI = 0.891, NFI = 0.903, CFI = 0.937, RMR = 0.043, and RMSEA = 0.082. All hypotheses were supported, except H4. Specifically, exhibitors’ trust of the exhibition behaviors was found to have a positive influence on citizenship behavior (ꞵ = 0.555, t = 6.056, p < .001) and participation behavior (ꞵ = 0.482, t = 4.779, p < .001) respectively, supporting H1 and H2.

Figure 1

Result of SEM.

Table 4.

Result of Hypotheses Tests.

Hypothesis	Path	Standard Estimate	t value	Results
H1	Trust → Citizenship behavior	0.691	6.056^***	Supported
H2	Trust → Participation behavior	0.459	4.779^***	Supported
H3	Citizenship behavior → Loyalty	0.269	3.054^**	Supported
H4	Participation behavior → Loyalty	0.071	−1.276	Rejected
H5	Trust → Loyalty	0.749	10.026^***	Supported

Note. Model fit: χ2 (81) = 210.129 (p < 0.000, df = 81), GFI = 0.891, NFI = 0.903, CFI = 0.937, RMR = 0.043, RMSEA = 0.082.

p < 0.5, **p < 0.01, ***p < .001.

These results imply that as an exhibitor’s trust increases, they become more willing to help, provide active feedback, have good interactions, and share and seek information proactively with the host organizer. Exhibitors’ citizenship behavior produced by trust had a positive impact on their loyalty (ꞵ = 0.219, t = 3.054, p < .01), supporting H3. On the other hand, exhibitors’ participation behaviors had no impact on loyalty (ꞵ = −0.082, t = −1.276) toward the exhibition, and thus H4 is rejected. These results differ from those of Kim et al. (2019), who found casual relationships between participation behavior and customer attitude. However, the findings suggest that exhibitors’ citizenship behavior is a much more important predictor of support for exhibition organizers. Finally, the results confirm prior research that trust has a positive influence on exhibitors’ loyalty (ꞵ = 0.685, t = 10.026, p < .001), supporting H5.

Moderating Effects

As noted above, the procedure of PROCESS Macro Model 1 for SPSS, proposed by Hayes (2022), was used to verify the moderating effect of visiting frequency (first vs. repeat) on the relationship between trust and participation, citizenship behaviors/loyalty (H6-1, H6-2, H6-3). Bootstrapping was used for verification with the confidential interval of 95%. As shown in Table 5, trust was found to have a respective positive significant effect on citizenship behavior, participation behavior, and loyalty (t values equaling = 5.330^***, 2.432^**, and 10.906^***, respectively). The interaction effect between trust and visit frequency had a significantly positive effect on participation behavior (t = 2.613^**, 95% CI [0.058, 0.416]) and loyalty (t = 2.770^**, 95% CI [0.070, 0.415), thereby supporting H6-2 and 3), but H6-1 was rejected (t = 1.670, 95% CI [−0.028, 0.339]), including zero for the confidence interval of bootstrap.

Table 5.

The Result of the Moderating Effect of Visiting Frequency (H6).

Outcome	Model	B	SE	t value	LLCI	ULCI	Model Summary
CB(H6-1)	Constant	−0.014	0.048	−0.284	−.0108	0.081	R = 0.530, R2 = 0.281∆R² = 0.009, F = 29.258^***
	Trust	0.350	0.066	5.330^***	0.221	0.480
	Visitation	0.027	0.068	0.392	−0.108	0.162
	TxV	0.155	0.093	1.670	−0.028	0.339
PB(H6-2)	Constant	0.107	0. .047	2.274^**	0.014	0.200	R = 0.530, R2 = 0.281∆R² = 0.024, F = 29.258^***
	Trust	0.156	0.064	2.432^**	0.030	0.282
	Visitation	−0.215	0.066	−3.234^**	−0.346	−0.084
	TxV	0.237	0.091	2.613^**	0.058	0.416
Loyalty(H6-3)	Constant	3.394	0.045	75.218^***	3.305	3.483	R = 0.769, R2 = 0.591∆R² = 0.013, F = 113.004^***
	Trust	0.676	0.062	10.906^***	0.554	0.798
	Visitation	−0.013	0.064	−0.198	−0.139	0.114
	TxV	0.243	0.088	2.770^**	0.070	0.415

Note. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

The next step was to analyze the conditional effect of trust on participation behavior and loyalty, according to the level of visit frequency (first = 0, repeat = 1), and the effect of each was significant, as shown in Table 5. In other words, repeated visits have a much higher effect of trust on participation behavior and loyalty.

Conclusion and Discussion

Summary of the Findings

The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of trust on exhibitors’ participation and citizenship behaviors, and whether these behaviors influenced exhibitors’ loyalty within the exhibition industry. The empirical results supported four hypotheses and rejected one hypothesis. The key findings are as follows:

First, as highlighted by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002) and Songailiene et al. (2011), trust emerged as the most-valued benefit that exhibitors obtained from ongoing relations with the host, thereby verifying that trust has positive influence on citizenship, participation behaviors, and loyalty. This implies that trust plays a crucial role in mitigating challenges related to booth setup and preparation, thus supporting the notion proposed by Morgan and Hunt (1994) that trust is essential for successful B2B connections. The greater impact of trust on citizenship behavior compared to participation behavior suggests that once trust is established, exhibitors are likely to contribute additional value to the exhibition host beyond mere cooperation—an aspect not fully addressed in previous literature.

The study also confirms that citizenship behavior has a positive influence on exhibitors’ loyalty (Cossío-Silva et al., 2016; Y.-L. Lee et al., 2019; C.-C. Yang et al., 2014). However, no relationship was found between participation behavior and loyalty, contrasting with the findings of Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer (2012). This suggests that while favorable interactions and responsive behaviors are beneficial, they may not necessarily result in positive word-of-mouth regarding the exhibition and host. The cultural norms in Korea indicate that interactions and responsible behavior might be perceived as basic business etiquette. Although information exchange and performance are crucial for the success of exhibitions, this study supports the idea that citizenship behavior plays a more significant role in determining long-term business relationships, a topic that, as previously noted, has been inadequately explored in existing research.

Finally, as a significant contribution of this study, frequency of exhibition attendance reinforces relationships such as trust/participation behavior and loyalty, but seemingly has little role in the relationship between trust and citizenship behavior. In simple terms, this implies that repeated attendance on the part of the exhibitor—even when they have high levels of trust—does not always lead to citizenship behaviors such as tolerance, helping, and feedback to others at the exhibition. The appearance of such behavior seems to depend on more specific ad-hoc events rather than a general formation of trust based on repeated experiences. Repeat attendance alone is not enough to generate positive outcomes, but loyalty and trust do make significant contributions. This implies that there is a need for a more nuanced approach on the part of event organizers that past attendance does not guarantee future attendance and, furthermore, does not in itself imply tolerance of sub-optimal performance by the event organizers.

Theoretical Implications

This study makes several notable contributions to the existing literature on the exhibition industry. First, it enhances our understanding of how reciprocal relationships between exhibitors and event organizers can be formed and nurtured by providing a deeper understanding of exhibitor loyalty through the examination of its link with trust, participation, and citizenship behaviors. This study contributes to the theoretical framework surrounding loyalty—particularly within the B2B exhibition industry—which has been relatively under-explored in comparison to customer loyalty in traditional retail settings (Kuhn & Mostert, 2018; Nakamori et al., 2022). Moreover, it explores the formation of shared visions, values, and potential co-production by employing social exchange theoretical frameworks, often omitted when analyzing the B2B exhibition setting (Sarmento et al., 2015). Given the economic importance of B2B exhibitions, the modeling also implies that trust and good citizenship behaviors are contributors to the broader economy.

Second, this study extends existing theory in the B2B literature by examining how the effects of trust on customer involvement, such as participation and loyalty, may differ between new and repeat customers. The investigation into how loyalty drivers differ between first-time and repeated exhibitors provides a nuanced view that many existing studies may overlook. Namely, while previous research has established trust as a crucial variable for triggering customer involvement, engagement, behavior, and loyalty (Arıca et al., 2023; Gansser et al., 2021; Srivastava et al., 2024), this study empirically reveals that the impact of trust is not uniform across all circumstances. Specifically, it demonstrates that repeat exhibitors, who already possess trust, are more engaged and responsible, leading to more successful exhibitions compared to new exhibitors. This nuanced finding has scarcely been addressed in the literature, although some studies have explored group comparisons related to exhibition attachment (Fu et al., 2019), augmented reality experience (Y. Liu et al., 2023), and perceived relationship quality (Jin et al., 2012). This distinction not only adds depth to exhibitor loyalty theory; it also suggests that loyalty-building strategies should be tailored based on exhibitors’ previous experiences, contributing a practical dimension to the theoretical framework. Therefore, examining the moderating effects of first-time versus repeated exhibitors in the pathway from trust to participation, citizenship, and loyalty will be a crucial area for future research in the exhibition literature.

Third, citizenship behavior, typically discussed within internal organizational settings, is rarely highlighted in external stakeholder relationships (Balaji, 2014). This study extends the concept to exhibitor–organizer interactions, showing that when exhibitors go beyond expected participation to support and enhance the event experience, they contribute significantly to value co-creation. This theoretical contribution enriches the literature by proposing that citizenship behavior can play a pivotal role in a collaborative business to business environment.

Lastly, the study underscores the importance of examining exhibitors’ participation and citizenship behaviors towards organizers, as these behaviors are vital for generating value co-creation. This focus on joint organizational outputs, such as co-design, idea co-conception, and co-marketing (Frow et al., 2015; Vargo & Lusch, 2008), is critical. By shifting the focus to the active roles exhibitors can play, this study suggests that co-creational behaviors could be as important—if not more so—than traditional relational quality factors in building strong exhibitor–organizer relationships. Nevertheless, existing literature has not fully addressed this aspect. Most research has concentrated on improving relational quality, including involvement, engagement, loyalty, and trust for long-term relationships (Jin et al., 2012; Lai, 2015; Lai & Wong, 2021). Thus, the approach adopted in this study encourages future research to consider co-created value as an equally important, parallel framework to relational quality in stakeholder interactions in the B2B exhibition sector.

Managerial Implications

This study also offers several important managerial implications. First, the exhibition organizer would find benefits in trying to enhance trust with exhibitors. An emphasis on staff possessing trusting dispositions and strong professional reputations will create a sense of trust that relies on individual attributes, effective communication, and organizational qualities (Robert et al., 2009). Mutual communication with exhibitors via social networks would be an effective way of building trust among exhibitors who otherwise may consider conference attendance as being simply the provision of data to be utilized for improved performance (W. Y. Wang et al., 2016).

Second, the exhibition organizer should closely monitor exhibitors’ behaviors regarding past patterns of support and participation in efforts to help create successful exhibitions. This requires the implementation of a monitoring system that includes exhibitors’ feedback and opinions on how the exhibition can be improved. This may be particularly crucial in a post-pandemic period that shows businesses increasingly using AI (Artificial Intelligence) and ICT (Information and Communication Technology) to engage with their respective clientele. Moreover, organizers should consider additional strategies that enhance the perceived value of responsible behavior, thus linking it more effectively to loyalty.

Third, this study reveals that repeat customers with higher levels of trust scores have the highest levels of loyalty, are interactive and responsive, and provide both positive and negative feedback to exhibition organizers. Trust thus plays a pivotal role in shaping a broader concept of industry citizenship. This study also highlights that repeat attendance at exhibitions has a distinct link to loyalty and citizenship, thereby reinforcing the need for event monitoring by organizers. Also, organizers should design specific strategies to offer repeat exhibitors greater personalized experience—long-term partnerships supplemented by incentives for shared responsibility.

Limitations and Further Research

Like other empirical studies, this research has some limitations that imply opportunities for further research. First, these results should be interpreted in the context of the exhibition industry with some care, because past findings highlight the significance of omitted variables including customers’ individual characteristics, organizers’ support and culture, and their employees’ involvement (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012). Future research can delve into such factors. Also, investigating cultural and individual differences of reciprocity will be another avenue for further studies to expand the present contribution and, additionally, comparisons between B2C (business-to-consumer) and B2B (business-to-business) fairs will be helpful to expand the research scope in the exhibition area, subject to the caveat noted in the final paragraph.

Second, the causal relationship between trust, participation, and citizenship behaviors could be further examined. In this study, trust was conceived as a determinant of the success of participation and citizenship behaviors which could trigger value creation, but the pattern of causality may well be reiterative. This potential reiterative nature of causality could be a subject for future research.

Finally, as the setting of the empirical study was Seoul, South Korea, the findings may not be generalizable to other regions or countries that possess less hierarchical cultural systems. Thus, future research is recommended to test the proposed measurement scale and conceptual model in other different regions possessing different cultural backgrounds, in order to permit possible global generalization. Finally, employing enhanced sampling techniques that permit international comparisons may further strengthen the validity and generalization of the findings.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480241311151 – Supplemental material for Exhibitor Loyalty Through Trust, Participation and Citizenship Behaviors – Moderating Effect of First-Time and Repeat Exhibitors

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jht-10.1177_10963480241311151 for Exhibitor Loyalty Through Trust, Participation and Citizenship Behaviors – Moderating Effect of First-Time and Repeat Exhibitors by Jiwon Lee and Chris Ryan in Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jiwon Lee

Chris Ryan

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Jinwon Lee is currently completing her second doctoral degree at the University of Waikato. She is currently researching the usage of hiking trails and the motives of hikers of Dulle-gil trails in Seoul. Email: youninj77@gmail.com

Chris Ryan is a Professor of Tourism at the University of Waikato. His research interests include the behaviours and motives of tourists and the consequences of those behaviours for tourists, communities, environments and economic impacts. Email: caryan@waikato.ac.nz

References

Adongo

Kim

Elliot

(2019). “Give and take”: A social exchange perspective on festival stakeholder relations. Annals of Tourism Research, 75, 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2018.12.005

Agustin

Singh

(2005). Curvilinear effects of consumer loyalty determinants in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.96.56961

Akhtar

M. W.

Syed

Husnain

Naseer

(2019). Person-organization fit and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of perceived organizational support, affective commitment and trust. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 13(2), 311–333.

Alonso

A. D.

Bressan

(2013). Stakeholders’ perspectives on the evolution and benefits of a traditional wine festival: The case of the Grape Festival (“Festa dell’Uva”) in Impruneta, Italy. Journal of Convention & Event Tourism, 14(4), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/15470148.2013.834806

Alves

Wagner Mainardes

(2017). Self-efficacy, trust, and perceived benefits in the co-creation of value by consumers. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 45(11), 1159–1180. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-05-2016-0071

Kim

Hur

(2021). Keeping the competitive edge of a convention and exhibition center in MICE environment: Identification of event attributes for long-run success. Sustainability, 13(9), Article 5030. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095030

Arıca

Kodas

Cobanoglu

Parvez

M. O.

Ongsakul

Della Corte

(2023). The role of trust in tourists’ motivation to participate in co-creation. Tourism Review, 78(4), 1182–1202. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-08-2021-0399

Baker

T. L.

Cronin

J. J.

Hopkins

C. D.

(2009). The impact of involvement on key service relationships. The Journal of Services Marketing, 23(2), 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040910946378

Balaji

M. S.

(2014). Managing customer citizenship behavior: A relationship perspective. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(3), 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876076

10.

Bennett

R. J.

Robson

P. J. A.

(2004). The role of trust and contract in the supply of business advice. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28(4), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/28.4.471

11.

Berry

L. L.

(1995). Relationship marketing of services—growing interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300402

12.

Bettencourt

L. A

. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90024-5

13.

Casper Ferm

L.-E.

Thaichon

. (2021). Value co-creation and social media: Investigating antecedents and influencing factors in the U.S. retail banking industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, Article 102548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102548

14.

Celsi

R. L.

Olson

J. C.

(1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1086/209158

15.

Chang

K.-L.

Chen

C.-M.

Meyer

T. J.

(2013). A comparison study of travel expenditure and consumption choices between first-time and repeat visitors. Tourism Management, 35, 275–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.006

16.

Chen

Cottam

Lin

(2020). The effect of resident-tourist value co-creation on residents’ well-being. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 44, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.05.009

17.

Cheng

J.-C.

Chen

C.-Y.

Yen

C.-H.

Teng

H.-Y.

(2017). Building customer satisfaction with tour leaders: The roles of customer trust, justice perception, and cooperation in group package tours. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 22(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1271816

18.

Cossío-Silva

F.-J.

Revilla-Camacho

M.-Á.

Vega-Vázquez

Palacios-Florencio

(2016). Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1621–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.028

19.

Cropanzano

Anthony

E. L.

Daniels

S. R.

Hall

A. V.

(2017). Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099

20.

Dabholkar

P. A.

Sheng

(2012). Consumer participation in using online recommendation agents: Effects on satisfaction, trust, and purchase intentions. The Service Industries Journal, 32(9), 1433–1449. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.624596

21.

Deery

Jago

L. K.

(2010). Delivering innovation, knowledge and performance: The role of business events (Technical report). Business Events Council of Australia. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/id/eprint/8594

22.

Dong

Evans

K. R.

Zou

(2008). The effects of customer participation in co-created service recovery. Journal of the Academy Marketing Science, 36(1), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8

23.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

24.

France

Merrilees

Miller

(2015). Customer brand co-creation: A conceptual model. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(6), 848–864. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-06-2014-0105

25.

Franklin

Marshall

(2019). Adding co-creation as an antecedent condition leading to trust in business-to-business relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 77, 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.10.00

26.

Frow

Nenonen

Payne

Storbacka

(2015). Managing co-creation design: A strategic approach to innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12087

27.

Okumus

Jin

(2019). Linking the internal mechanism of exhibition attachment to exhibition satisfaction: A comparison of first-time and repeat attendees. Tourism Management, 72, 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.11.002

28.

Fuchs

Reichel

. (2011). An exploratory inquiry into destination risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of first time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination. Tourism Management, 32(2), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.01.012

29.

Füller

Bilgram

(2017). The moderating effect of personal features on the consequences of an enjoyable co-creation experience. The Journal of Product & Brand Management, 26(4), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2016-1122

30.

Gansser

O. A.

Boßow-Thies

Krol

(2021). Creating trust and commitment in B2B services. Industrial Marketing Management, 97, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.07.005

31.

Garbarino

Johnson

M. S.

(1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251946

32.

George

Mallery

(2001). SPSS for Windows. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

33.

Grissemann

U. S.

Stokburger-Sauer

N. E.

(2012). Customer co-creation of travel services: The role of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation performance. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483–1492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.02.002

34.

Groth

(2005). Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. Journal of Management, 31(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271375

35.

Gummerus

Liljander

Weman

Pihlström

(2012). Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211256578

36.

Hair

Black

Babin

Anderson

(2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition PDF eBook. Essex: Pearson Higher Ed.

37.

Han

Hyun

S. S.

(2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(3), 303–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348012436381

38.

Hatch

M. J.

Schultz

(2010). Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand governance. Journal of Brand Management, 17(8), 590–604. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2010.14

39.

Hayes

A. F.

(2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). New York City, NY: The Guilford Press.

40.

Hayes

A. F.

Montoya

A. K.

Rockwood

N. J.

(2017). The analysis of mechanisms and their contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling. Australasian Marketing Journal, 25(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2017.02.001

41.

Lin

Liang

(2019). Creating a high-performance exhibitor team: A temporary-organization perspective. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 81, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.02.009

42.

Hennig-Thurau

Gwinner

K. P.

Gremler

D. D.

(2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670502004003006

43.

Hessling

Åsberg

Roxenhall

(2018). Relationship commitment and value creation in sponsorship relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 25(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2018.1454646

44.

Holtom

Baruch

Aguinis

Ballinger

G. A.

(2022). Survey response rates: Trends and a validity assessment framework. Human Relations, 75(8), 1560–1584. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211070769

45.

Hon

L. C.

Grunig

J. E.

(1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.. University of Flrida: Institute for Public Relations https://instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships.pdf

46.

Hsu

J. L.

Wang

T. C.-T.

Huang

P. Y.-H.

(2014). Motivations for first-time and repeat backpackers in Shanghai. Tourism Management Perspectives, 12, 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2014.08.001

47.

Huang

H.-C.

(2016). How does meetings, incentives, conventions, and exhibitions industry attract exhibitors? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2015.1016444

48.

Izogo

E. E.

Jayawardhena

Adegbola

E. A.

(2020). Creating particularized trust in e-retailers through experiential value and generalized trust. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 28(1), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2018.1482944

49.

Jackson

D. L.

(2003). Revisiting sample size and number of parameter estimates: Some support for the N:q hypothesis. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(1), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_6

50.

Jeong

(2017). Business-to-business social exchange relationship beyond trust and commitment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 65, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.06.004

51.

Jia

Wan

(2022). Why are strangers trusted more during trade fairs? A literature review on the conceptual model of general trust formation. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 37(11), 2205–2216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2021-0164

52.

Jin

Weber

Bauer

(2012). Relationship quality between exhibitors and organizers: A perspective from Mainland China’s exhibition industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1222–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.012

53.

Julia

(2024). Revenue of the B2B trade show market worldwide from 2018 to 2026. Statista. Retrieved October 30, 2024, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1135685/b2b-trade-show-market-value-world/

54.

Kim

Tang

Bosselman

(2019). Customer perceptions of innovativeness: An accelerator for value co-creation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 43(6), 807–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348019836273

55.

Kuhn

Mostert

(2018). Relationship intention and relationship quality as predictors of clothing retail customers’ loyalty. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 28(2), 206–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2017.1380067

56.

Lai

I. K. W.

(2015). The cross-impact of network externalities on relationship quality in exhibition sector. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 48, 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.04.007

57.

Lai

I. K. W.

Wong

J. W. C.

(2021). From exhibitor engagement readiness to perceived exhibition performance via relationship quality. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 46, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2020.12.004

58.

Lee

K.-H.

Hyun

S. S.

(2016). A model of value-creating practices, trusting beliefs, and online tourist community behaviors: Risk aversion as a moderating variable. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(9), 1868–1894. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-01-2015-0002

59.

Lee

M. J.

Lee

Joo

Y. M.

(2015). The effects of exhibition service quality on exhibitor satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 24(7), 683–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.934982

60.

Lee

S. K.

Sok Jee

Funk

D. C.

Jordan

J. S.

(2015). Analysis of attendees’ expenditure patterns to recurring annual events: Examining the joint effects of repeat attendance and travel distance. Tourism Management, 46, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.07.001

61.

Lee

Y.-L.

Pan

L.-Y.

Hsu

C.-H.

Lee

D.-C.

(2019). Exploring the sustainability correlation of value co-creation and customer loyalty-A case study of fitness clubs. Sustainability, 11(1), Article 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010097

62.

L.-Y.

(2006). Relationship learning at trade shows: Its antecedents and consequences. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(2), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.03.006

63.

Cheng

C.-K.

Kim

Petrick

J. F.

(2008). A systematic comparison of first-time and repeat visitors via a two-phase online survey. Tourism Management, 29(2), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2007.03.010

64.

Lin

(2016). An examination of determinants of trade show exhibitors’ behavioral intention: A stakeholder perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28(12), 2630–2653. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-06-2015-0318

65.

Liu

Wang

Fang

Zhang

(2019). Scale development for tourist trust toward a tourism destination. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31, 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2019.07.001

66.

Liu

Bitter

J. L.

Spierling

(2023). Evaluating interaction challenges of head-mounted device-based augmented reality applications for first-time users at museums and exhibitions. In Rauterberg

(Ed). Culture and Computing. Design Thinking and Cultural Computing: 9th International Conference, C&C 2021, Held as Part of the 23rd HCI International Conference, HCII 2021, Virtual Event, July 24–29, 2021, Proceedings, Part II (Vol. 12795). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.

67.

Matzler

Teichmann

Strobl

Partel

(2019). The effect of price on word of mouth: First time versus heavy repeat visitors. Tourism Management, 70, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.09.013

68.

Mitrega

Klézl

Spáčil

(2022). Systematic review on customer citizenship behavior: Clarifying the domain and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 140, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.11.029

69.

Mora Cortez

Johnston

W. J

. (2017). The future of B2B marketing theory: A historical and prospective analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.07.017

70.

Morgan

R. M.

Hunt

S. D.

(1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308

71.

Nakamori

Newell

S. J.

Han

B. T.

(2022). Factors influencing consumer loyalty: A study of Japanese retail stores. Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, 23(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599231.2022.2032958

72.

Namkung

Jang

(2009). The effects of interactional fairness on satisfaction and behavioral intentions: Mature versus non-mature customers. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(3), 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.11.001

73.

Nevin

J. R.

(1995). Relationship marketing and distribution channels: Exploring fundamental issues. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300413

74.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: Mcgraw Hill Book Company.

75.

Oromendía

A. R.

Paz

M. D. R.

Rufín

(2015). Relationship versus transactional marketing in travel and tourism trade shows. Tourism Economics, 21(2), 427–434. https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0355

76.

Palmatier

R. W.

Dant

R. P.

Grewal

Evans

K. R.

(2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136

77.

Pappas

(2016). Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.007

78.

Rather

R. A.

Hollebeek

L. D.

Rasoolimanesh

S. M.

(2022). First-time versus repeat tourism customer engagement, experience, and value co-creation: An empirical investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287521997572

79.

Revilla-Camacho

M. Á.

Vega-Vázquez

Cossío-Silva

F. J.

(2015). Customer participation and citizenship behavior effects on turnover intention. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1607–1611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.02.004

80.

Rinallo

Borghini

Golfetto

(2010). Exploring visitor experiences at trade shows. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 25(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621011038207

81.

Robert

L. P.

Denis

A. R.

Hung

Y.-T. C.

(2009). Individual swift trust and knowledge-based trust in face-to-face and virtual team members. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(2), 241–279. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222260210

82.

Roy

S. K.

Balaji

M. S.

Soutar

Jiang

(2020). The antecedents and consequences of value co-creation behaviors in a hotel setting: A two-country study. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 61(3), 353–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965519890572

83.

Saarijärvi

Kannan

P. K.

Kuusela

(2013). Value co-creation: Theoretical approaches and practical implications. European Business Review, 25(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341311287718

84.

Sarmento

Simões

Farhangmehr

(2015). Applying a relationship marketing perspective to B2B trade fairs: The role of socialization episodes. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2014.10.010

85.

Shen

Xue

(2020). The effect of online interaction and trust on consumers’ value co-creation behavior in the online travel community. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 37(4), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1553749

86.

Smith

M. D.

Bailey

Brynjolfsson

(1999). Understanding digital markets: Review and assessment. MIT Press. http://ecommerce.mit.edu/papers/ude

87.

Song

Daryanto

Soopramanien

(2019). Place attachment, trust and mobility: Three-way interaction effect on urban residents’ environmental citizenship behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 105, 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.001

88.

Songailiene

Winklhofer

McKechnie

(2011). A conceptualisation of supplier-perceived value. European Journal of Marketing, 45(3), 383–418. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111107249

89.

Soper

D. S.

(2020). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Retrieved June 21, 2024 from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc

90.

Sridhar

Voorhees

C. M.

Gopalakrishna

(2015). Assessing the drivers of short- and long-term outcomes at business trade shows. Customer Needs and Solutions, 2(3), 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-015-0039-y

91.

Srivastava

Sivaramakrishnan

Pandey

(2024). Demystifying customer engagement in B2B markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(11), 2364–2385. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2023-0481

92.

Swanson

S. R.

(2017). The effect of destination social responsibility on tourist environmentally responsible behavior: Compared analysis of first-time and repeat tourists. Tourism Management, 60, 308–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.12.011

93.

Taek Lim

Sil Lee

. (2006). Host population perceptions of the impact of mega-events. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(4), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/10941660600931259

94.

Tafesse

Skallerud

(2015). Towards an exchange view of trade fairs. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 30(7), 795–804. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2014-0090

95.

Tanford

Jung

(2017). Festival attributes and perceptions: A meta-analysis of relationships with satisfaction and loyalty. Tourism Management, 61, 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.02.005

96.

Toufaily

Souiden

Ladhari

(2013). Consumer trust toward retail websites: Comparison between pure click and click-and-brick retailers. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(6), 538–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.05.001

97.

UFI(Union des Foires Internationales). (2024). 33rd UFI Global exhibition barometer. The Global Association of the Exhibition Industry. https://www.ufi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/33rd-Barometer.pdf

98.

van Tonder

Saunders

S. G.

Lisita

I. T.

de Beer

L. T

. (2018). The importance of customer citizenship behaviour in the modern retail environment: Introducing and testing a social exchange model. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 45, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.08.011

99.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

(2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0069-6

100.

Walz

A. M.

Celuch

K. G.

(2010). The effect of retailer communication on customer advocacy: The moderating role of trust. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 23, 95–110.

101.

Wang

W. Y.

Pauleen

D. J.

Zhang

(2016). How social media applications affect B2B communication and improve business performance in SMEs. Industrial Marketing Management, 54, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.12.004

102.

Wang

Moyle

Whitford

Wynn-Moylan

(2014). Customer relationship management in the exhibition industry in China: An exploration into the critical success factors and inhibitors. Journal of China Tourism Research, 10(3), 292–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2013.856777

103.

Waseem

Biggemann

Garry

(2021). An exploration of the drivers of employee motivation to facilitate value co-creation. The Journal of Services Marketing, 35(4), 442–452. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-11-2019-0458

104.

Weidenfeld

Björk

Williams

A. M.

(2016). Cognitive and cultural proximity between service managers and customers in cross-border regions: Knowledge transfer implications. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 16(Suppl. 1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2016.1244587

105.

Whitfield

Webber

D. J.

(2011). Which exhibition attributes create repeat visitation? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.07.010

106.

Wong

J. W. C.

Lai

I. K. W.

(2018). Evaluating value co-creation activities in exhibitions: An impact-asymmetry analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.011

107.

Wong

J. W. C.

Lai

I. K. W.

(2019). The effects of value co-creation activities on the perceived performance of exhibitions: A service science perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.03.003

108.

Xie

L.-S.

Peng

J.-M.

Huan

T.-C.

(2014). Crafting and testing a central precept in service-dominant logic: Hotel employees’ brand-citizenship behavior and customers’ brand trust. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.05.011

109.

Yang

C.-C.

Chen

P.-S.

Chien

Y.-H.

(2014). Customer expertise, affective commitment, customer participation, and loyalty in B&B services. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 6(4), 174–183.

110.

Yang

Ryan

Zhang

(2013). Social conflict in communities impacted by tourism. Tourism Management, 35, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.06.002

111.

Gong

(2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.026

112.

Nataraajan

Gong

(2011). Customer participation and citizenship behavioral influences on employee performance, satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intention. Journal of Business Research, 64(1), 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.12.007

113.

Zhang

Abd Rahman

Abdul Aziz

Sidek

(2023). Unpacking technological and interpersonal interaction on value co-creation and outcomes in trade show: A dyadic examining view. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 55, 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.05.007

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB